MI/UI

[Vampyr]

No, I was just trying to help by listing possible reasons.

 

So, why do you consider Vampyr's comment unfair?

 

Why do you not answer, blackshoe?

[blackshoe]

Why do you not answer, blackshoe?

Because I didn't see the post.

 

Having looked back through the thread, I see that I objected to your characterization of Kaplan's efforts as sacrificing clarity for elegance, and Grattan's as sacrificing clarity "just for the hell of it". I suppose you might have a point about the former — I never met Edgar Kaplan, so I don't know what his motivation was — but although I've not met Grattan either (except online, if that counts) I doubt very much if anyone involved in writing the rules for a game would do that.

[Vampyr]

I doubt very much if anyone involved in writing the rules for a game would do that.

 

What do you suppose is the reason, then?

[lamford]

(c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized

The director call is authorized and any ruling by the director is authorized. However, inferences as to why the TD was called are not. Otherwise, someone would have to call the TD every time a bid was not alerted in order to defend oneself against deliberately not alerting and seeing which opponent is unhappy.

[blackshoe]

What do you suppose is the reason, then?

I don't.

[Aardv]

Is this 3♦ bid alertable? In the absence of an alert one would understand it to show something in diamonds, but usually not 4+ cards. And the actual agreement is much the same as that, except that N-S have agreed that it promises a diamond honour. I don't think that's enough of a difference to constitute an alertable agreement, not least because an alert would tend to mislead opponents into thinking that it's an artificial call - that puts them at a disadvantage if West wants to double an artificial 3♦ but not a semi-natural 3♦.

 

But suppose that we eventually persuade ourselves that this 3♦ is alertable, what of it? Well, the fact of the director call, and the identity of the caller, should be UI. But if West voluntarily broadcasts information by asking to talk to the director away from the table, on his own head be it - that should be AI to declarer and UI to East.

 

Alternatively, if you think it unreasonable to expect West to know the proper procedure, surely it's more unreasonable to expect North to know that you're going to rule the 3♦ bid to be alertable.

 

Most unreasonable of all is to expect declarer to guess that you're going to rule West's actions to be UI to him. If the TD thinks there's UI, he has to tell declarer so before he plays the hand.

[Vampyr]

I don't.

 

Well, obviously the Drafting Committee have either the inability or an unwillingness to express themselves clearly in English. If you don't want to speculate which it is, that's understandable. I think that knowing which it is could help someone who is in a position to influence the writing of the next version (maybe not you or I, but maybe someone we know or could write to) to try to ensure that a clear and unambiguous set of laws is produced.

[jallerton]

The director call is authorized and any ruling by the director is authorized. However, inferences as to why the TD was called are not. Otherwise, someone would have to call the TD every time a bid was not alerted in order to defend oneself against deliberately not alerting and seeing which opponent is unhappy.

 

Maybe that is why the Law requires the TD to be called whenever an explanation is corrected (or a call is alerted late).

 

Once the TD has been called, the TD is in charge of the table. The Law does not confer any right to a player to ask to speak to the TD away from the table, and the TD did not ask the player to leave the table (so that is not part of the TD call). The Law I quoted above does permit players to draw inferences from the opponents' actions. I suspect that West probably didn't realise at the time that his request was giving information away about his hand.